Recommended Posts

A crapload of pundits all say a variation of the same thing as they stare gobsmacked at Trump's surge: Donald Trump is not going to be the Republican presidential nominee in 2016.

I want to add to this--another tendency I have observed.

There is a fundamental difference between Trump and the vast majority of his critics. Trump is a man of action more than words. (Believe it or not. )

He builds things, produces them. In fact, his words have so often been bluster, people tend to dismiss them as hyperbole. They love him because they love what he does more than what he says and they love the fact that he strives for excellence, is unapologetically proud of it and delivers.

But political manipulators ONLY work with words. That's what they use to manipulate people. That's what they use to replace action. And between truth and falsehood, they go with what works to manipulate the public, not what is right or wrong.

They don't have a clue about the appeal of action, of production, of actually doing something real. They think if they spin something the right way, they turn the herd around.

So it's getting pretty funny on how they are denying that Trump will get the nomination. They are no longer content to say it like in the quote above. They are now embellishing it. Stringing it out. Defending the idea.

There were also laws discriminating against Chinese, not sure if any of those were federal or if they were just California's law. For a period Oregon prohibited blacks from moving there.

So essentially, you do not know what you are addressing, you "create" definitions like national origin is similar to race...how so?

You then assert that States within the structure of Federalism that exists in the Constitutional Republic's framework document wherein States have certain powers that are co-jurisdictional with the United States as a nation state and have different jurisdictions that solely are reserved to the states or the people, banned blacks.

Again, I will ask you where you were educated?

This is not personal against you friend, it is a critique of how poorly you argue.

Critical example is your assertion that Blacks were "...prohibited from moving there..." which, at least on this forum, cries for a reference, link or citation.

It took me 30 seconds to search and come up with this:

Beginning with the Exclusion Law of 1844 enacted by the provisional government of the region, Oregon passed a series of measures designed to ban African American settlement in the territory. Historian Elizabeth McLagan describes those laws in the article below.

Oregon passed exclusion laws against African Americans twice during the 1840s, considered another law in the 1850s, and in 1857 approved an exclusion clause as part of its constitution. Exclusion laws were also passed in Indiana and Illinois and considered in Ohio, but Oregon was the only free state admitted to the Union with an exclusion clause in its constitution.

The first exclusion law was passed in 1844 by the Provisional Government of Oregon, the temporary governing political structure set up by the first American settlers to reach the region over the Oregon Trail. This first law included a ban on slavery and a requirement that slaveowners free their slaves. African Americans who remained in Oregon after their freedom was granted, however, would be whip-lashed and expelled. If they were caught again in the Territory within six months, the punishment would be repeated. This law was amended to substitute hard labor for whiplashing, and was repealed in 1845, before it could take effect.

In 1849 another exclusion law was passed. This one allowed black residents already in Oregon to remain, but banned further African American in-migration. Ship owners were responsible for their black crew members and could be fined $500 if the crew member jumped ship and remained in Oregon. In this second version, African Americans would be arrested and then ordered to leave. This law was in effect until 1854, when, in a general housekeeping act, it was repealed. Later attempts to reintroduce it suggest that this repeal was accidental.

In 1857, when a constitution was written in anticipation of statehood, a third exclusion clause was inserted, prohibiting new in-migration of African Americans, as well as making illegal their ownership of real estate and entering into contracts. They were also denied the right to sue in court. This clause, Article 1 Section 35, was subject to popular vote, as was the adoption of a ban on slavery and the entire constitution. The exclusion clause received more popular votes than the approval of the constitution or the ban on slavery. Although enabling legislation was never passed and the clause was voided by the14th and 15th Amendments passed after the Civil War, the ban remained a part of Oregon’s constitution until it was finally repealed in 1927

That speaks for itself so eloquently, I don't think it needs any comment.

Well, one. There are several reasons given why Bush should avoid a debate with Trump (that Trump is quick-witted and confident and so on). The funniest is that Trump has nothing to lose, insinuating that Bush does. That Trump will still be Trump if he loses a debate or the election.

So Bush has something to lose? He will stop being a Bush if he loses a debate or the election?

By Alasdair Baverstock in Mexico City and Ollie Gillman for Mailonline13 July 2015

Mexico's billion dollar drugs lord known as 'El Chapo' has gloated on Twitter about his escape from a maximum security jail by taunting authorities and threatening US-presidential hopeful Donald Trump.

. . .

... following his escape he has took to Twitter and used it to hit back at Trump, who has said that the Guzman embodies 'everything that is wrong with Mexico' and added he would 'kick his ass'.

On the account, administered by Guzman's son Ivan, the escapee reportedly wrote: 'If you keep p****** me off I'm going to make you eat your words you f****** blonde milk-s*****'.

. . .

He also started calling death threats on those who have supposedly betrayed him, including El Chabelo, the current incarcerated boss of Sinaloa's rival cartel the Zetas.

Guzman wrote: 'First to die is El Chabelo, for wanting to see me die in prison.'

He then hinted that the authorities had been complicit in the jailbreak by posting: 'The dog (slang for the Mexican government) dances for money, and I've bought it.'

El Chapo brags that he bought the Mexican government and don't think Trump is going to keep quiet about it.

But check this out.

Now The Donald gets to be a threatened victim, too?

Dayaamm!

Talk about Talking Points.

I don't fear for Trump, but he has to be extra-careful now. I'm sure he will be.

And if Trump becomes president, I would not want to be this thug with the entire US government and military after him on a personal vendetta.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Brant wrote: Since I was born in the United States, btw, I too am a native American. "Native American" is partly racist exclude the white man or all who came to North America after those "innocent" brown-skinned tribes. end quote

Stop using the offensive term white man, unless referring to THE TRUE white people. That term is reserved for albinos, who are a whiter shade of pale. You who have proudly served in the U.S. military shall hence forth be called red, white, and blue people, while overzealous sunbathers shall be called red men, and that UK crooner who sings that he is holding back the years shall be called Simply Red though the quick red fox is still sufficient.

RobinReborn wrote: There was one wave of Native Americans that crossed the bering straight when sea levels were lower. There were also polynesians who settled the Americas before Columbus. end quote

Thats just a rumor. Brown, as with gray should only be referenced with its closest shade attached. Yellow only exists in flowers and on the bellies of cowards. Blue laws are on the way out. If you wish to eradicate the term red men please change the treaties first.

As an aside, one of my favorite authors Tony Hillerman who writes about the Navaho Nation in his police and crime novels appears to be retired but his daughter Anne Hillerman has now written two novels using her fathers characters Chee, Leaphorn, and others. I recommend them.

Adam wrote: What race was excluded and from what years? end quote

And Great job on the Trump stuff. end quotes

This is Trump talking: We can't talk about them. They are excluded. See my book Repatriation For Dummies. We should build a wall along the east coast to keep them out and you know who I mean and a wall along the west coast to keep those others out. Canadians should pay for it.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

@Selene, it's not clear to me that you have the critical reading skills to understand me. It's like you are interpreting with the intention to disagree. I'm not sure how to continue this discussion.

I don't have the time to cite every claim I make, I believe people who read this forum are intelligent so I'm not going to waste my time citing things which I believe most intelligent people know. You've cited my claim and given it undue attention.

What are you trying to achieve? I have my own style of arguing and it is effective for my personal goals. If you don't like it, fine. But I'm not going to change it just to appease you.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

@Selene, it's not clear to me that you have the critical reading skills to understand me. It's like you are interpreting with the intention to disagree. I'm not sure how to continue this discussion.

I don't have the time to cite every claim I make, I believe people who read this forum are intelligent so I'm not going to waste my time citing things which I believe most intelligent people know. You've cited my claim and given it undue attention.

What are you trying to achieve? I have my own style of arguing and it is effective for my personal goals. If you don't like it, fine. But I'm not going to change it just to appease you.

I concluded some time back that you make stuff up. If you're not twelve years old it's inexcusable. Pardon me if I don't take you seriously but even if 90 % of what you're saying has some merit I don't have the time to separate the wheat from the chaff. There are smarter more honest people, I simply don't need to try to sort you out.

Part of Trump's leap in the polls is certainly his having stumbled onto a popular issue -- one that drives the Republican establishment batty.

Once upon a time, Trump was too unpopular to make it very far in the race. He's still unpopular, and this is only one poll, so we'll have to say if others confirm it. But it seems fair to say that ruling him out based on his unpopularity might no longer apply. He's not popular in the GOP, but he's no longer a pariah.

This is polling of hardcore Republican voters.

Apropos, in another recent poll by The Huffington Post, Trump is pretty far ahead of everybody. Here is his tweet crowing about it (deservedly in my view ):

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

RobinReborn wrote: I don't have the time to cite every claim I make, I believe people who read this forum are intelligent so I'm not going to waste my time citing things which I believe most intelligent people know. End quote

Hear Hear! But let’s not get off topic. Do what I do. Make stuff up. From Wikicopia: Trump’s service to his country. He has actually used the government in his own favor so Capitalists and Progressives should adore him. He has given to the Salvation Army. He is a Juggalo and belongs to the Insane Clown Posse where he has run down many a drug dealer (needs citation.) Gives discounts to people in uniform who visit his hotels and casinos of up to $2.50 per visit. He is xenophobic and has been mentioned in a negative way by Mexicans whether they be poor or if they are a billionaire who runs a drug cartel – So, USA, USA! The Donald has frequently told his limousine driver to swerve to miss stray dogs and cats so he has no need to support PETA or the local car wash. end phony quote

Michael showed El Chapo's California driver's license. So, is he a citizen? Where's Trump's drivers license? Where was he born? He sounds like he has an accent. That's not the Bronx, that's a French accent if you ask me.

RobinReborn wrote: I don't have the time to cite every claim I make, I believe people who read this forum are intelligent so I'm not going to waste my time citing things which I believe most intelligent people know. End quote

Hear Hear! But let’s not get off topic. Do what I do. Make stuff up. From Wikicopia: Trump’s service to his country. He has actually used the government in his own favor so Capitalists and Progressives should adore him. He has given to the Salvation Army. He is a Juggalo and belongs to the Insane Clown Posse where he has run down many a drug dealer (needs citation.) Gives discounts to people in uniform who visit his hotels and casinos of up to $2.50 per visit. He is xenophobic and has been mentioned in a negative way by Mexicans whether they be poor or if they are a billionaire who runs a drug cartel – So, USA, USA! The Donald has frequently told his limousine driver to swerve to miss stray dogs and cats so he has no need to support PETA or the local car wash. end phony quote

Michael showed El Chapo's California driver's license. So, is he a citizen? Where's Trump's drivers license? Where was he born? He sounds like he has an accent. That's not the Bronx, that's a French accent if you ask me.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

@Selene, it's not clear to me that you have the critical reading skills to understand me. It's like you are interpreting with the intention to disagree. I'm not sure how to continue this discussion.

I don't have the time to cite every claim I make, I believe people who read this forum are intelligent so I'm not going to waste my time citing things which I believe most intelligent people know. You've cited my claim and given it undue attention.

What are you trying to achieve? I have my own style of arguing and it is effective for my personal goals. If you don't like it, fine. But I'm not going to change it just to appease you.

I concluded some time back that you make stuff up. If you're not twelve years old it's inexcusable. Pardon me if I don't take you seriously but even if 90 % of what you're saying has some merit I don't have the time to separate the wheat from the chaff. There are smarter more honest people, I simply don't need to try to sort you out.

Really? Why didn't you call me out on it then?

I'm not sure if I can take you seriously, if I met anybody who said things that had merit 90% of the time I'd be incredibly grateful and it would be worth my time to determine the 10% of the time when they're wrong. Where are these smarter and more honest people?

I think you have a narrow view of the truth. That or you like to mess around with people because you can't identify with them in a normal way.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

@Selene, it's not clear to me that you have the critical reading skills to understand me. It's like you are interpreting with the intention to disagree. I'm not sure how to continue this discussion.

I don't have the time to cite every claim I make, I believe people who read this forum are intelligent so I'm not going to waste my time citing things which I believe most intelligent people know. You've cited my claim and given it undue attention.

What are you trying to achieve? I have my own style of arguing and it is effective for my personal goals. If you don't like it, fine. But I'm not going to change it just to appease you.

I concluded some time back that you make stuff up. If you're not twelve years old it's inexcusable. Pardon me if I don't take you seriously but even if 90 % of what you're saying has some merit I don't have the time to separate the wheat from the chaff. There are smarter more honest people, I simply don't need to try to sort you out.

Really? Why didn't you call me out on it then?

I'm not sure if I can take you seriously, if I met anybody who said things that had merit 90% of the time I'd be incredibly grateful and it would be worth my time to determine the 10% of the time when they're wrong. Where are these smarter and more honest people?

I think you have a narrow view of the truth. That or you like to mess around with people because you can't identify with them in a normal way.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

I think you have a narrow view of the truth. That or you like to mess around with people because you can't identify with them in a normal way.

You have a broad view of truth? You remind me of my sister who scolded me with "Everyone's got their own truth!". Your intellectual house is on fire and you desperately need to be mentored. Sorry, anyone I could recommend is either dead or busy. Ayn Rand appears to be too hard for you. Try Hoffer or Thoreau, work your way up.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

I think you have a narrow view of the truth. That or you like to mess around with people because you can't identify with them in a normal way.

You have a broad view of truth? You remind me of my sister who scolded me with "Everyone's got their own truth!". Your intellectual house is on fire and you desperately need to be mentored. Sorry, anyone I could recommend is either dead or busy. Ayn Rand appears to be too hard for you. Try Hoffer or Thoreau, work your way up.

Link to post

Share on other sites

The word out now is he is a big government Democrat posing as a conservative Republican. And they mention the eminent domain thing and so on.

What they always leave out is context. Trump, as a hard-hitting businessman, took the corrupt situation he found and, rather than go to war with it, he made it work. He did that with bankruptcies, too.

He did not do that to pretend this is the way life could and should be. His goal was not to philosophize or create utopia, but to build successful projects. That was his universe. This is a mindset that is generally foreign in the Objectivist and libertarian world, even though Rand understood it. Here in O-Land, we want to play God and pretend we know what is best for all humanity. The idea of saying to hell with being God, and focusing instead on what is within our own reach--and be spectacular at that--is not applauded or condemned. It's just not there.

But it was for Trump. He was hell-bent on making his projects successful and he was spectacular at it.

The ideological purists who take him to task for eminent domain and so on have a much different context. They are not putting up major construction projects. So for them, the real world is easy. Don't do jack shit. Just talk about it and point and point and point to what is wrong. And opine negatively about those who do things.

If Trump gets the nomination and gets elected, I have little doubt he will take the political leader perspective as his new context. He is a very smart man--a high-end achiever. In that sense, I say he will listen to people, believe it or not. He will think about rights much more seriously than he does as a producer in a corrupt environment.

As a politician, I seriously doubt he will grow government in order to increase entitlements or wage wars. He will stimulate the economy like hell so that producers of all stripes will be able to get work and/or realize their projects. He will stand up to people who want to kill us. And he will stand up to people who want to keep us in constant wars.

All with hype and flair, maybe. But real-word productive substance instead of the government's mission creep of gradually enslaving individuals will be there.

I see this clearly from looking at the way he is. And I like the prospect.